Well, it looks like we are off to a good start. Augusto left the forum. I think it is his strategy to bore his opponent into submission.

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Monkeymind - LOL. i think you are right. his strategy is something along the lines of getting his opponent so frustrated with the procedural aspects of the debate that the opponent cannot think straight on the substantive aspects (not that i am suggesting this would work with Lucifer, but Augusto has yet to impress me with his cognitive ability).

Logged

"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist."Epicurus

I have several more, and also I invalidated Lucifer's arguments. So I dont see how we are losing (God and I) because according to the rules he MUST:1) Disprove my argument (if he can).2) Offer a new argument for the atheist side.3) Refute my argument against his.

If he cannot disprove my argument, and he cannot reinforce his argument (which was disproved by me), I have one argument on favor that God is likely to exist and he have zero, then he will have to come up with another argument... hopefully it wont be as easy to destroy as this first one.

I have several more, and also I invalidated Lucifer's arguments. So I dont see how we are losing (God and I) because according to the rules he MUST:1) Disprove my argument (if he can).2) Offer a new argument for the atheist side.3) Refute my argument against his.

If he cannot disprove my argument, and he cannot reinforce his argument (which was disproved by me), I have one argument on favor that God is likely to exist and he have zero, then he will have to come up with another argument... hopefully it wont be as easy to destroy as this first one.

No. You have yet to make a logically consistent argument. Unless you can provide a valid reason for your usage of those four attributes your argument fails right out the gate.

There's nothing for him to disprove because the entire foundation of your argument is a fallacy. You have to make a valid case first for him to disprove or argue against.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Augusto says the Bible is not to be taken as the proof. If the Bible is not the proof, then each person should be able to sense God. Yet very few people can describe this and most say they have a "feeling." Feelings are not proof as far as I know. No messages came either, bringing us useful facts from God.

I notice that large portions of Augusto's arguments seem to be a cut and paste job. See here for example. Even if he's the person that wrote that originally, he should at least acknowledge that he's copying something that he previously posted. If it's not his, that's what we call plagiarism.

No. You have yet to make a logically consistent argument. Unless you can provide a valid reason for your usage of those four attributes your argument fails right out the gate.

There's nothing for him to disprove because the entire foundation of your argument is a fallacy. You have to make a valid case first for him to disprove or argue against.

If there is "something" with such properties, one can also conclude that God's existence is totally possible.

About some content taken from other sources, I had a mess of links, probably forgot to include that one link, I already fixed that, now what's that post in the debate room that is not from Lucifer but from kin hell?

I notice that large portions of Augusto's arguments seem to be a cut and paste job. See here for example. Even if he's the person that wrote that originally, he should at least acknowledge that he's copying something that he previously posted. If it's not his, that's what we call plagiarism.

Just found this Grogs I had just posted an example straight to the debate thread (as indication to all concerned) not realising that you were here commenting on the same observation.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

Maybe you should just post in here, doesn't it look hypocrite to point at a minor flaw in my post by irrupting in the debate? please don't do that. There's no need, there are several moderators online, there is PM and there is this topic.

No. You have yet to make a logically consistent argument. Unless you can provide a valid reason for your usage of those four attributes your argument fails right out the gate.

There's nothing for him to disprove because the entire foundation of your argument is a fallacy. You have to make a valid case first for him to disprove or argue against.

If there is "something" with such properties, one can also conclude that God's existence is totally possible.

About some content taken from other sources, I had a mess of links, probably forgot to include that one link, I already fixed that, now what's that post in the debate room that is not from Lucifer but from kin hell?

That's your whole argument, dude! You just cut and paste it in there. It sounds like maybe we should just get "Lord Anthony Horton" in here to do the debate since you're just presenting his ideas rather than your own.

So Grog, you're implying Lucifer discovered his argument by himself? cool... let's see what else he discovered, and good luck on bringing Lord Anthony Horton in here, and good luck at disproving him, while so far neither of you seem able to disprove my very first argument.

Also, a note for those who want to meditate: This is not supposed to be your war, more likely atheists should be critical, and driven to follow reason instead of a religious group.

What if I destroy all of Lucifer's arguments? would you still be atheists? would you deny the weight of any argument to sustain yours? honor the atheist position by following reason, because without that, you're a religion without god(s) and without rules, that is the worst religion ever.

The point of the debate is to expose all the reasons we know of to support both positions, and to determine which one have more weight. Atheists should, by concept, follow the position with more weight. This is the logical thing to do, otherwise you're a fanatic, and I should be posting on a forum of whatever religion to explain them why it is false (and would get the same hate and bashing I'm getting here).